A procedural error by the Ministry of Public Works (MINTP) could prove costly for the Cameroonian government in its dispute with BOFAS Sarl. By choosing an inappropriate appeal route, the MINTP has rendered a ruling by the Administrative Court of the Centre irrevocable, placing the state in a delicate situation.
The case dates back to March 20, 2025, when the Administrative Court of the Centre issued Order No. 12/OSE/CAB/PTA/2025. This order mandated the suspension of any mobilization of bank guarantees related to the Babadjou-Bamenda road rehabilitation project, a project at the heart of the disagreement between BOFAS and the MINTP. The decision had an immediate effect, obliging the state to suspend any action on these guarantees pending a judgment on the merits.
Cameroonian law provides a specific appeal route against this type of administrative decision: an appeal to the Supreme Court. However, on April 8, 2025, the MINTP filed an appeal, a route not provided for in this case. This seemingly technical error has had significant consequences. The deadlines for filing an appeal to the Supreme Court are strict. By failing to meet these deadlines, the MINTP lost its right of appeal, a situation known as foreclosure.
BOFAS obtained a certificate of non-appeal to the Supreme Court, dated August 7, 2025, certifying that no appeal had been filed within the legal deadlines against the order of March 20, 2025. Legally, this means that the decision has become final and is binding on all parties, including the Cameroonian state. Only exceptional cases provided for by law could allow this decision to be challenged.
This situation strengthens BOFAS's position, which now benefits from an unassailable court decision. The administration, for its part, sees its room for maneuver reduced in the management of this dispute. If the administration acted against this decision, it would expose itself to a challenge to its liability and would undermine the principles of the rule of law.
Beyond this particular case, this affair raises questions about the mastery of litigation procedures by Cameroonian public administrations. An error in the choice of appeal route can have irreversible consequences. The Babadjou-Bamenda road rehabilitation project is a strategic project linking two important regions of Cameroon. The financial stakes are considerable, with bank guarantees representing significant sums.
This case could set a precedent in a country where construction companies face difficulties in enforcing their rights against the administration. It serves as a reminder that procedural rules are essential to the proper functioning of the judicial system. The evolution of the case before the Administrative Court of the Centre will be closely followed, but BOFAS is approaching the next stage with a significant legal advantage. The Cameroonian government will have to learn the lessons of this case to improve the litigation management of its public contracts.
